Children, Young People, and Education Committee

Croeso nôl. Welcome back. This is our next evidence session, and it is our seventh evidence session on the Residential Outdoor Education (Wales) Bill. I'd like to welcome Frank Young, director of policy and research of Parentkind. You're very welcome. We'd like to say thank you very much for the survey and the paper that you provided—we very much appreciate that, and all Members have a copy of that information as well. So, thank you. We have a number of questions to put to you this morning. Just firstly, briefly, perhaps you can just outline your personal, or your organisation's, involvement in the development of the Bill, if you have had any.

Thank you, and thank you for taking evidence from Parentkind this morning. We have had no prior involvement in the drafting of the Bill. However, we were invited at this stage to provide evidence for consultation.

Do you support the policy intention of the Bill, which is to ensure that a course of residential outdoor education is provided once, free of charge, as part of the curriculum to registered pupils at maintained schools, and, if yes, why?

Yes, we do. Parentkind is one of the largest federated charities in the UK, and we represent almost 700 parent-teacher associations in Wales, covering about 44 per cent of schools. We broadly support the intention to provide children with outdoor residential visits, and this is based on evidence we have received from parents in Wales. About eight out of 10 tell us that they support the principles behind the Bill, 42 per cent say that their children have attended residential outdoor visits, and about eight out of 10 tell us that they found this a useful experience. It is particularly important to those parents that the costs of travel, accommodation and meals are fully funded too. I would also say that we broadly support the principles behind the Bill in relation to mental well-being for young people, and this is based on evidence we have from the national parent survey for Wales, where anxiety and depression are of particular concern to parents in Wales, and residential outdoor visits might be one of the ways that we can address this issue.

Thank you. Are you aware of children missing out on residential outdoor education, and to what extent? And to what extent do organisations like parent-teacher associations subsidise these trips through fundraising, and is that really going to be a realistic prospect going forward, given the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing at the moment?

Yes, that's right. Through our survey work with Welsh parents, we are aware that about a third of parents in Wales don't regularly take their children on educational trips outdoors, and that is actually half when we come to children of secondary age. The data is worse, as you might expect, for parents of children entitled to free school meals. So, we recognise that there are, potentially, a lot of children who are missing out on outdoor trips with an educational value.

In terms of parent-teacher associations—PTAs—themselves, I would be cautious about putting an expectation on individual groups of parents to fundraise for school trips, particularly those related to outdoor residential education. We have some anecdotal evidence of PTAs raising money for larger school events, such as residential trips. We would welcome a conversation around the capacity for PTAs to fundraise for wider educational ambitions, but this has to be set I think in a more strategic conversation, rather than simply expecting schools to make up funds themselves. Members will be particularly alert to the potential inequalities therein, with schools in wealthier areas probably more able to subsidise than those in poorer areas.

Absolutely. Thank you. We've got some questions now from James Evans. James.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and bore da. It's good to see you with us this morning from Parentkind. I have a couple of questions on your views on the overall Bill. On the face of the Bill, it doesn't really define what residential outdoor education is. I'm just interested in what your view is on this, and could there be an argument there that, actually, this could lead to inconsistency across schools across our country, offering something different, or do you see that also as an opportunity, because, as part of the new Curriculum for Wales, it embeds that local schools can actually decide what's right for them and what's right for their learners? Do you see that this could be an opportunity as well—not having it on the face of the Bill?

I think there is potential opportunity here to be ambitious for our education system, and that's perhaps something we will come on to later on. I'm here representing Parentkind and the voice of parents in education, and I will contain myself to that. In terms of drafting the legislation itself, I don't think we would have a corporate view other than the inherent risks associated with over-drafting a piece of legislation and being too prescriptive. What we do know from our evidence is that parents largely support the principle of outdoor education and some of the educational value of that, and it's important that we don't get into a situation through the drafting of the Bill that outdoor education, as most of us would understand it, actually ends up becoming something else that we wouldn't recognise as outdoor.

Thank you. Talking about over-drafting the Bill, I'm sure if you went before our Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, they'd say that, actually, we should have more information in Bills about what they actually are. But the Bill deliberately doesn't specify what age or school year the entitlement actually starts, so I'm just interested: what are the benefits of that and what do you also think could be the drawbacks? Do you believe that there should be something in the Bill drafted as to what age that starts at?

I take the point. I recognise there is a difference between the Bill itself and then subsequent guidance provided by Government to steer the delivery of the Bill, and that is always a tension, I think, in legislation. I think, from the evidence we have, we would suggest that the benefits of what is quite a long residential stay of five days and four nights would likely be of benefit to older children of around secondary age, or close to it. I think any of us who are parents of young children would recognise that that period of time is potentially quite a long period for a young child.

The evidence we have from the national parent survey for Wales also indicates significant concern over anxiety and depression among secondary age children in particular, versus primary age children, and I think we would be very mindful, therefore, of the potential benefits and ambition for outdoor education to address this issue. There is also the issue of screen time, of course, and we found that about half of parents in Wales would tell us they're very concerned about the amount of time their child spends on screens and on social media. Inevitably, this is likely to be heavily biased towards older children, in the teenage age group. So, I think we would have a preference for older children and see some of the benefits of that in particular.

And one final question on your views on the Bill. Is there anything else that you would like to see amended or included in this Bill as it goes through the legislative process here in the Senedd?

Yes. I think what's particularly important to us is that the provision for any additional costs falling on parents needs to be recognised, either through the Bill itself or subsequent guidance. I know I won't be the only person to have said this, or the only group to have mentioned this, but in consultation with parents it is one of the main concerns. When we survey parents in Wales about school costs, inevitably school uniform cost comes out top, but behind that the second biggest concern is school trips. And about half of parents actively say they are struggling with the cost of school trips. So, I think that gives an indication of some of the concerns that parents have, and we really need to make sure that we are practical and realistic about this, and that all the costs that are associated with going on an extended trip are represented and are covered.

That actually leads me quite nicely on to my next question, because I want to talk about barriers to accessing outdoor residential education. You alluded to this, that the Bill doesn't cover all elements. It covers the cost of the stay, it covers the cost of the travel, but there are a lot of us around this table and virtually who know that it does have additional costs, sometimes, going on outdoor residential education. I take fully and appreciate that some centres do provide certain elements of what the pupils do need, and young people do need, when they go on those courses. But that doesn't cover everything, including those spare clothes and everything that comes with it.

I'm just interested in your views, from your organisation—do you think the school essentials grant or the PDG could be an element here where schools could actually make up that bit of funding, and support those people from low-income families? Because we need to make sure that any legislation that we put through here is accessible to everybody, especially within the realms of education. So, do you think those two grant pots could pick up the slack, perhaps?

I think we're very mindful of the pressures on the public purse and the pressures on Government in Wales to fund education and all of our public services. It is probably not realistic to say that those two pots could, in their existing form, cover costs associated with an extended outdoor trip, but I think that is the right area to be looking at. I know you've received evidence from other groups that those grants could be a potential avenue for supporting parents who are struggling to meet any of the additional costs. You might well be considering issues around means-testing too and where some of the lines are drawn. I know that will be a consideration for the committee and Members. I think we need to be mindful really of the extent to which parents are struggling with costs, and drawing a line too tightly around free school meals and parents who are really struggling with day-to-day costs and poverty might end up underestimating the true extent of the pressures on parents.

I could go into a little bit of detail on means testing, because, with universal legislation, then adding a means-testing element to it doesn't mean it's universal for everybody, does it? So, it opens up its own can of worms that, doesn't it, in a different way?

Yes.

But I'll just move on, if that's okay. You did mention this earlier, in an earlier answer to me, the mental health elements to do with as well, because the Member in charge—. Other than financial constraints, a large number of consultees came back and said there's big anxiety among parents and pupils about sending children on outdoor residential education as well. And I'm just interested here—. We all fully appreciate, around this room, and I'm sure wider than here, that having great access to outdoor learning and education is a great way to help your mental health and well-being. But one thing I'm interested in is: do you think the Bill goes far enough to address the concerns that some people have around the elements of mental health and anxiety?

I think, at the moment, probably not. I think, again, I would point to the difference between the Bill and subsequent guidance. And I think we need to be mindful of consulting parents effectively, and this might be something we touch on later on. But parental anxiety will not just be around potential cost, but it will also look at the child they are potentially sending on a residential trip, particularly in relation to any additional needs or mental health concerns that they have around the child. What this really comes down to is really good communication between school and family and parents, and I think we need to get that absolutely right, so that we are aware of the parents in our schools that might be concerned—they might not easily voice those concerns, because of perceptions around stigma or shame—and then making sure that the trip itself, and the potential educational benefits and mental health benefits, are well explained in detail to provide that reassurance and the reassurance messaging that is needed to make sure everyone—and the people, arguably, who need the trips the most—get access.

Lovely. If you'll indulge me, Cadeirydd, I've got two more questions, if that's okay.

Yes. Go on.

One thing that also we want to talk about is making sure that outdoor residential education and any outdoor pursuits that schools do are accessible for absolutely everybody, including those pupils who do have physical disabilities, mental health issues and also other debilitating health conditions. Do you think the Bill goes far enough to address that to make sure that this Bill is truly accessible to everybody?

Well, I think the most important aspect of the Bill from a parent perspective, and I will contain my comments to the views of parents in Wales and the evidence we have, will be around cost in particular, so that has to be addressed, and I know we've touched on that issue. But I think we need to work through all the potential groups that are at risk, and those would include children with additional learning needs, children who are educated outside of school, not always in school, particularly those with anxiety around attending school, and those children who have some other form of disability that might prevent them accessing what is quite a long residential visit. But it's really important that any legislation—I lean quite heavily on subsequent guidance too, which is probably easier to adapt as well as we go along and learn—ensures we target all the groups who might be at risk of missing out.

Thank you. My final question is quite, in a way, technical. So, if you haven't got an answer, if you'd like to write to us, that would be fine. But one thing that the Member in charge has outlined is that this is compulsory but, if parents and young people really do not want to take part in residential outdoor education, there is an opt-out option for parents to do that, or the pupil. Do you think that the Bill and the explanatory memorandum are clear on how that is actually available and how that's actually going to work in practice? As I said, it's quite a technical question, about section 42 of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021. But, if you want to write to us on that, that's fine. Thank you, Cadeirydd.

Thank you. And I will take the opportunity to write to the committee. Clearly, issues around compulsion are central to this Bill. We know, through our evidence and the evidence that I hope the committee already has in consultation, that not all children are accessing outdoor residential learning. So, there's going to be that tension between making things optional and then only having some children benefiting, the ones who don't need that experience the most benefiting, and then a form of compulsion that feels like quite a blunt instrument in legislation.

Thank you. Thank you, James. We'll move on to questions from Laura Jones. Laura.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for being with us today. You've already said just now—I'll follow on from one of James's questions just now—that you hope that no group would be missing out from this Bill if it went ahead. The Bill does not include children who are educated otherwise than at school and those in pupil referral units, who may be who you were referring to just now. It also says that

'it is hoped that the Welsh Government will consider how they can be offered it'.

What is your view on this? Could it be a missed opportunity to include some of the most excluded learners within the Bill's provisions, given that learners are already likely to be those from disadvantaged or low-income families?

Yes, I do. And I think 'opportunity' is the right word here; there's an opportunity to be ambitious as well, for our education system and the children who would benefit the most from an extended outdoor educational opportunity here. One of the most striking bits of data, I think, from our national parents survey for Wales, and indeed, across the UK, is the number of children who simply tell us that they either don't enjoy school, they don't enjoy learning, or they don't feel safe at school. And about one in 10 parents tell us that their child doesn't feel safe at school. So, the reason I think there's an opportunity here is that we can shake up the way we do education and we can do education that is just slightly different to the classroom norm that we would be familiar with and that re-engages children, teenagers in particular, into our education system and into education more broadly, as well as some of the wider mental health benefits that we'll all be concerned about. I think you're absolutely right to point out some of the opportunities for children who are home schooled, which, as you'll be aware, is a diverse group and shouldn't be treated as one homogenous group, but also those who are outside of mainstream education in pupil referral units or alternative provision too. My general message is that we need to be aware of those other groups, but also ambitious for them, because, in many ways, this is mostly for them.

Yes. Would you agree, then, that it's about changing life habits as well, as well as the short-term effects on mental health et cetera?

Yes, and, perhaps, if I may say so, particularly in Wales, where the opportunities are more obvious and available to children. There is evidence to suggest that, as children go along in an extended outdoor visit, they move away from electronic devices, smart phones and start to really embrace and experience the outdoors. We all know that one of the best ways to tackle anxiety and mental health problems is to be outside and to experience nature. But that is much harder, of course, if you're growing up in an environment where that just isn't on your doorstep, or you don't see it outside of your window. So, I think there is a real opportunity here to change the sort of expectations and outlook of children in a much healthier direction.

Yes, thank you. We know that there are, obviously, big reforms, at the moment, currently under way in schools—the new curriculum and additional learning needs reforms—do you have any concerns that the Bill might unintentionally add a pressure on schools already under a lot of pressure?

I think we would. Separately from, I think, the evidence we have from parents, clearly there is significant reform under way, in Wales in particular, in the school system. But I think we also have to recognise that the possibilities in education policy to change lives and improve our country. So, where it might be—. I would say it might be slightly out of scope for Parentkind, but I do think we should be positive about these opportunities, particularly for children who don't enjoy school or are disengaged. And our parents—. If I can bring it back to parents, our parents in Wales, from the survey work we've done so far, reflect that enthusiasm, I think, around issues on building personal confidence, working with other children, developing a connection with the natural world. There is also some support for understanding the Welsh language and culture and heritage, which Members may well come on to.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Laura. Questions from Sioned Williams. Sioned.

Helo, bore da, a, ie, byddwn i'n hoffi siarad yn benodol, efallai, am ddarpariaeth Gymraeg a'r gofynion yn ehangach ar ddarparwyr. Ydych chi'n cytuno gyda'r ddarpariaeth sydd yn y Bil fod yn rhaid i'r addysg awyr agored breswyl yma fod ar gael yn y Gymraeg os taw dyna yw dymuniad yr ysgol? Oes gyda chi unrhyw dystiolaeth o ran oes yna ddigon o ddarpariaeth ar gael ar hyn o bryd i ateb y galw posib os daw'r Bil yn gyfraith?

Thank you. We don't have specific evidence on providers and provision. We do have some evidence from parents in Wales that there is broad support—there is a majority support—for using residential outdoor education as described in the Bill to support Welsh language and Welsh heritage. It's slightly beyond the scope of Parentkind to comment, but I would reflect on the importance to parents, but I wouldn't want to overstate it, of making sure that this provision provides for that sense of home, the country they are growing up in, the heritage of that country and what it means and that they are part of it and they can experience it.

Dyw'r Bil ddim yn darparu ar gyfer trwyddedu darparwyr, dyw e ddim yn gosod gofynion y mae'n rhaid eu bodloni cyn derbyn ymweliadau preswyl gan ysgolion. Felly, beth yw eich barn chi ar p'un ai dylid gosod lefel ofynnol o ofynion i ddarparwyr addysg awyr agored breswyl? Beth fyddai'r manteision a'r anfanteision o'ch safbwynt chi?

I think one concern of parents, and the overriding concern of parents, would be around safeguarding, and that would come out prominently in any research we did and consultation we did on this issue specifically. I don't think we have a developed view on whether there should be a specific licensing arrangement or whether existing regulation and legislation would adequately cover provision. What I would say, however—perhaps talking from some experience of policy development and legislation elsewhere—is that concern over safeguarding shouldn't be caught up in a wider debate around so-called red tape. I think it's easy to fall into that sort of language, when everybody, of course, will be concerned about safety and safeguarding. Also, if I might say so, in terms of outdoor education, it's a particularly complex area where, naturally, there is some risk, and you want to encourage some risk and risk-taking and challenging yourself in the outdoors. But licensing would have to reflect this, and it's an overriding concern for parents, as it would be, I think, for policy makers too.

Diolch. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you, Sioned. Finally, some questions from Laura again. Laura.

Thank you, Chair. Just finally, now, in your view, who do you think should be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Bill? How should outcomes for pupils be monitored?

I think it would usually fall to an inspecting body to ensure that provision is being met at a school level, and particularly where inspecting bodies might look at governance arrangements for schools too. I think there's always going to be a challenge for Government in delivery of new entitlement of this sort, based in legislation. I don’t think Parentkind would want to comment on the mechanics of implementation, other than to say that it would be important for parents to be made aware of any new rights or entitlements, so that they can actively, and proactively, perhaps, discuss these with their schools or the governing bodies for their schools, to ensure that they are taking up entitlement where it is on offer—or perhaps not on offer, and creating the pressure to do so. That particularly applies to some of the groups we’ve been talking about in this session, and that is about, I think, publicity and raising awareness as much as it is monitoring delivery.

I would want to put on record a point about consultation with parents. I think there is often a frustration that parents are not well consulted when it comes to education policy, and we need to make sure that, as we develop education policy and changes to our system, we do really good research and consultation on the views of parents. And that goes for Government research, I think, too, beyond the passing of a Bill. There is a lot that Government can do in terms of research itself, monitoring performance, and identifying gaps and underprovision.

As a parent, I agree with you. Therefore, would you expect measures to be put in place to ensure that every child has at least been offered that opportunity?

Yes, I think so. I think that that is clearly important. How that looks is a discussion about unintended consequences, overprescription versus the opposite, but that’s clearly important, and it’s clearly important to consider children and families outside of the norm, if you like.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Laura. That’s the end of the evidence session. Thank you very much for joining us and for agreeing to provide some further information. We really appreciate you giving that evidence today. You will receive a copy of the transcript just to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you.

We’ll just take a break now, and go into private session before our next evidence session.

Croeso nôl. Welcome back. This is our eighth evidence session on the Residential Outdoor Education (Wales) Bill. I'd like to welcome the Minister and his officials this morning. Thank you very much for joining us. We have Jeremy Miles, Minister for Education and the Welsh Language, Lloyd Hopkin, deputy director for curriculum in the Welsh Government, and Ceri Planchant, lawyer in the Welsh Government.

Thank you very much for being with us this morning. I know we've got a lot of questions to put to you in what feels like a short space of time, but we really appreciate it, so, we'll try and get through as much as we can. I'll make a start just with a very general question. Actually, the other point that I'd like to make is that we have had a letter from the Member whose Bill is put forward. I understand that the Minister has also received that letter, I think, this morning. So, Members may ask you a few questions based around that letter, or perhaps ask you to provide some more information. But before we do go into questions, is there anything particularly that you'd like to put on record around that letter at the outset?

No, Chair, I'm happy to take any questions as we go through them. If it's helpful, I'm happy to provide a written response to the committee as well.

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

The first question is around the development of the Bill. Perhaps you could say if the Welsh Government has had any involvement in the development of the Bill, and, if so, what.

No, we haven't, but my officials and I have had two meetings with the Member in charge to discuss the Bill and its aims. I've also made an offer to the Member in the Chamber, but outside the Chamber as well, to work together to seek to deliver the aims of the Bill in other ways.

Thank you. Your written paper states that the Welsh Government has very serious reasons for choosing not to support the Bill in three key areas: that's curriculum delivery, legislation and finance. Perhaps you can elaborate on the first of these in terms of why it's not in line with the new curriculum.

The underpinning principle in the curriculum reforms was that the content itself wouldn't be on the face of the Bill—that that would articulate the key knowledge and skills and experiences and then provide schools with the flexibility to choose how to meet those. That's the philosophy that underpins the curriculum, and what this Bill does is, in a sense, adopt a one-size-fits all approach by effectively requiring every school and setting to include residential outdoor education as part of the mandatory curriculum for all pupils. So, it's not consistent, if you like, with the vision underpinning the curriculum. The effect of the Bill is to make residential outdoor education compulsory, so, in a sense, it undermines that flexibility for schools to design a local curriculum that meets the needs of the particular pupils that they are serving.

Two of the key principles in the curriculum are that there is a continuum of learning from 3 to 16 and that principle of flexibility. There is already in the curriculum a strong emphasis on experiential learning, and I would contend that outdoor learning is far broader than residential outdoor education, in particular when it is as specific an intervention as the Bill envisages. So, I don't think it is sensible for us to legislate for individual approaches or activities as part of that broader curriculum approach. If you were to follow that path, it would be hard, I think, to distinguish particular interventions for forest schools, sports days, nature walks—all sorts of other particular interventions. So, it's not consistent with the broader vision of the legislation that it seeks to amend.

Thank you. The Member in charge has said that he's undertaken three detailed consultations on the Bill. He reports that there is a very significant level of support for the principles of this legislation. What consideration have you given to the levels of support for the Bill in coming to your own view on the Bill?

I have reflected considerably on that. As I said to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee earlier this week, I am very enthusiastic myself about outdoor learning and the potential that brings. I think, beyond doubt, that is a positive experience for young people. It helps them develop, helps them grow, helps them make connections with the world around them, helps with that sense of wonder, that sense of awe, which is where curiosity comes from. So, it has incredible benefits. I think that the support for education outdoors is absolutely clear.

What we are talking about here is whether this Bill is necessary and effective to deliver the objectives. I think residential outdoor education can be an effective approach. But there are challenges in that, aren't there? So, whatever provision we are able to make for that, there will always be implications for individual families around the costs of doing that, beyond the kinds of costs that any school, any government, is able to provide for—so, costs of clothing and so on. I know that there are some providers who provide that, but I think the implications of that need to be properly taken into account. My broader point is that access to outdoor education doesn't need to cost that for individual families. There are a lot of other ways that schools can and are delivering that outdoor learning experience very, very effectively.

And there's a final point, Chair, I think, in terms of the response to the consultation generally. It is right to say that there are high levels of enthusiasm for the broad principles and the broad objectives. But if you look at the responses of those who are nearest to delivering what the Bill is designed to achieve, they have very significant practical reservations about how it could be delivered. And I think it's important to give weight to those as well.

As the Member has said, and you've mentioned about the enthusiasm generally, he's consulted with children and young people as well, and the adults representing them, and the support, he says, is broadly there. They've said that cost was the biggest barrier to residential outdoor education. How do you respond to their view about the impact of cost?

Well, I think in the way that I've just said, Chair. The Bill obviously imposes on the Welsh Government an obligation to fund, but there are implications for families that go beyond that, so I think that needs to be taken into account. The other thing to say is that there is a danger, I think, in a specific statutory requirement on residential outdoor education, that this draws the attention and resources away, at a school level, from designing a set of sustained experiences, if you like, that are more woven through all aspects of the curriculum and that I absolutely know young people are also enthusiastic about.

Thank you. Following the Member's letter as well, just to get your understanding of this, would primary legislation be needed to bring residential outdoor education in as a compulsory element of the curriculum, or could this be done by making regulations under section 5 of the 2021 Act?

From my reading of the letter this morning, there is a sense, I think, in the letter, that our approach to this is contradictory, but there isn't a contradiction. Let me try and spell it out in this way, Chair, if I may: if the intention of the Bill is to require the Government to secure residential outdoor education to be offered and to fund it, specifically, then there is a need for primary legislation; if what is wanted is just to make residential outdoor education a mandatory part of the curriculum, then that can be achieved by regulations under the existing legislative framework. Just to be clear, the Bill clearly requires residential outdoor education to be a compulsory part of the curriculum. So pupils must, therefore, undertake residential outdoor education, unless they have an exemption under section 42 of the Act. So, essentially, it creates an opt-out system not an opt-in system. That's how the existing legislation relates to what's proposed here.

Thank you. The paper to the committee also says that:

'The new curriculum makes ample provision for outdoor experiences and the Explanatory Memorandum...does not adequately make the case for why pupils must be offered residential outdoor education.'

The EM says that the residential element of outdoor education is important because

'for many children this is first time away from home'

and it allows those relationships to grow and form between peers, which are felt back in the classroom. Perhaps you could respond to the residential part of the outdoor education being a core element of the proposed offer.

Yes. I won't repeat what I said to the committee earlier this week or what I've just said to you, but there is a much broader approach to outdoor learning and outdoor education, which the curriculum requires and supports schools to deliver. But, on the residential point specifically, in the discussion we had earlier, with the other committee, we were talking about the absence of a definition in the Bill for what residential outdoor education comprises, which I think is a problem. But this aspect is the bit that is defined. So, it says a certain number of days. I don't think the case is made for why that definition is the definition required to drive the outcomes in the Bill, not least because, from memory, it can be delivered on more than one occasion. So, I don't think the memorandum makes that case.

And I also think that, if the value in the activity is the residential element—. I had, and I'm sure most of us will have had, the opportunity of having a residential stay as part of our education, and I absolutely see the value of it, but it isn't clear to me why the residential element, which in the question you're saying is the bit that adds the additional value, if you like—and I can see that—why the residential element is attached to outdoor education as opposed to a music course or a drama course or some other activity. So, I think there's a tension in those two separate rationales for the Bill.

James, do you want—?

Yes. Is that okay?

Yes. I'll just bring James Evans in, briefly.

Yes. Minister, I just want to take you back to an answer you gave earlier, when you said that, if this came in, you'd be pulling money away from schools. Obviously, this would become a statutory element, so I just want to be clear in my mind, because the Bill states that the Welsh Government would have to provide additional moneys to schools to deliver this, so does that mean—just to get it clear in my head—that if you were still the Minister for education, you'd be taking money away from non-statutory elements to fund this as part of your education budget?

Well, that is not what I said. I was talking about—

You did.

—what schools would think, what decisions schools would make in relation to a particular part of the curriculum that is specified in the legislation. So, at the moment, schools are designing curricula that have a requirement to deliver outdoor learning in a broader sense. The point I was making on that is that, if there is a specific requirement in the legislation, as this Bill seeks to include, then the focus and effort of schools will be on delivering that, rather than the broader set of outdoor learning experiences that the curriculum currently provides. So, I was making a school-level point, rather than a Welsh Government budget point. But I'm sure we'll come on to that at some point, since that's one of the issues that I think is most live, in terms of the affordability of the legislation.

Diolch.

Brilliant. Thank you, Minister. We'll just move on to a question from Ken Skates.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Minister. Your paper says that the Bill undermines the flexibility of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021. Can you explain your concerns on that point and elaborate on what you mean when you say there are very serious reasons for not choosing to support the Bill in relation to legislation?

Certainly. Well, I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier in the week, but I'll just make specific points on this, if I may, which are the main points, I think, from the point of view of concerns around the legislation. Firstly, the Bill isn't clear on what local authorities, schools and Welsh Government separately, if you like, must do. The roles appear to overlap. The role for the Welsh Government appears to be on the one hand both the provision of resources and then the provision of residential outdoor education itself. I don't imagine that can be the intention of the Bill, but that is what it provides.

Notwithstanding what is said in the explanatory memorandum, the effect of the Bill is to make residential outdoor education a compulsory part of the curriculum. And I think it's worth us bearing in mind that when legal duties are analysed, and legal frameworks and requirements are analysed, the explanatory memorandum is not something the court, for example, if it came to it, would look at. So—[Inaudible.]—itself is obviously what defines the scheme.

So, there is provision, as I mentioned earlier in the week, under section 42, to disapply parts of the curriculum, which is the opt-out I was talking about earlier, and I know from the letter that the Member has sent to the committee, the Member questions my reference to section 42 being a 'blunt instrument'. Just to be clear, it's not a blunt instrument for the job it currently does; it's a blunt instrument for the job that the Bill requires it now to do. Because in order to get that exemption, you need to list why you're seeking to be exempted, and I think in the context of a school residential trip, it's a particularly onerous way of dealing with it from a parent's point of view and a school's point of view.

So, I think, those, I would specifically draw the committee's attention to, but also, the Bill specifically requires the Government to fund residential outdoor education. That has the effect of prioritising that above all other interventions in the curriculum, and it isn't clear to me that we would want to provide a unique level of funding obligation to this one very limited part of the curriculum.

Thank you. If the Bill was to be taken forward, then, who do you think the statutory duty to provide residential outdoor education should fall on?

There are different aspects to this. So, the design of the curriculum is a responsibility of the headteacher and the governing body. So, including residential outdoor education in the curriculum would be an obligation that they would need to fulfil as part of that design. But I think there would need to be a joint—we use the term 'joint and several', don't we—so, joint and separate duties on the local authority and on schools in relation to some aspects of that provision, and I don't think any of that is clear in the Bill, but I think that's the mix of duties.

Okay, thanks. And then, there are a number of references in your paper that the guidance to be issued by the Welsh Ministers is not appropriate, and that's for a range of reasons, including your views on it being mandatory and restrictive. Could you just elaborate a little more on your concerns about the guidance and also address why, in your view, it isn't appropriate for it to be mandatory?

Yes. So, my concerns around what is mandatory are related to the job of guidance. The job of guidance is to give advice rather than introduce mandatory elements to a scheme that otherwise the Bill doesn't make mandatory. So, if you're going to have mandatory elements, the way to do that is through the Bill or through regulations rather than through ministerial guidance, which can only provide, you know, advice. It's guidance, isn't it? So, that's my key concern.

There are some concerns as well, which I think are secondary in the context of what this committee is interested in, around how that has been provided for in the legislation. So, just to say in one sentence, section 71 of the original legislation is a power to provide guidance, and the Bill effectively introduces a duty to provide guidance into that, which I just think is very confusing. But, you know, from a policy point of view, I appreciate that's a secondary point.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Chair.

Diolch, Ken. We have questions from Laura Jones.

Thank you, Chair. Hello, Minister. You've just specified to Ken Skates that you have concerns over an exemption from taking part in the activity if this was to go ahead. Can you just elaborate on that a bit? I mean, the Bill also—. It specifies in the guidance that Welsh Ministers must provide that it's not compulsory for pupils to attend, so how would Welsh Government, if this Bill was to go ahead, include in the regulations how a child would get out or be exempt from the activity, and what potential repercussions would there be for the child for doing so? Thanks.

Thank you. Certainly. Well, this is one of the practical challenges. What the guidance says can't change what the Bill does. So, the starting point for, 'What is the legal obligation, the legal duties, the legal rights?' if you like, is what is in the Bill. What Ministers do in guidance isn't capable of changing that. So, as I was saying to Ken Skates a minute ago, that's one of the challenges in the way in which the guidance is doing so much of the heavy lifting, if you like, if I can use that term, in the context of the Bill, because you can't provide for something not to be compulsory through guidance if, in effect, it's compulsory in the Bill.

The point I was making about exemption is that the Bill takes advantage of the existing mechanism in the Act, which, from a consistency point of view, does make sense, but from the point of view of the practical application of section 42, I think, becomes onerous very quickly. Section 42 as applied to the current legislation would be used very rarely in practice, because of the way the curriculum is constructed. So, it's there as a fall-back, but it's an important one. I think, in this context, where parents are having to make decisions about whether their child is going on a residential outdoor course, perhaps on more than one occasion, section 42 then just does a different job, really, and will be, I think, a less effective way of doing that. That was my concern about the mechanism that the Bill is using.

Yes, of course, a child might want to be exempt, or a parent might want the child to be exempt for religious or ALN reasons, for example. If the Bill was to be passed, how would you go about getting over that hurdle, then?

Well, the section 42 provides for that already, so I think that mechanism is there in the legislation. What is not clear, I think, is what the—. If it's a mandatory part of the curriculum, which it's required to be, and that section 42 mechanism hasn't been used, and I think there is probably a heightened risk of that in the context of going on a school trip, which most parents wouldn't see as part of the curriculum in that core sense—. So, if it's mandatory, if there isn't a section 42 exemption, then that will be an unauthorised absence, in effect, if the child wasn't on that course, and there would be, under the current regime, a range of sanctions for that. I can't imagine, in practice, that schools would want to do that, to be clear, but it isn't clear on the legislative proposal in front of us what the consequence of that would be.

Thank you, Minister. If the legislation was taken forward, how would you expect measures to be put in place to track that every pupil has been offered the opportunity, and compliance, of course, more generally? And also, monitoring outcomes for pupils, are there any challenges in this regard?

Well, there would need to be—. If the Welsh Government was to collect data on pupils who had been offered—at least offered—residential outdoor education, that would require us to bring in or amend existing regulations, so there would need to be a new power to do that. I think, in practical terms, it would be more likely that we would amend the regulations under which schools report this to local authorities, and we have an existing mechanism for obtaining that data on an aggregate basis from local authorities, as you know, so I think that would be the more practical way of doing it. But the truth is, inevitably, this is an extra layer of reporting on schools, which I'm certain would be unwelcome, and perhaps the broader point is that no other part of the curriculum has a reporting requirement of anything like this specificity.

So, you see that as, potentially, an extra burden on schools, then.

If that scheme were required, that monitoring and that reporting, then I think that would be burdensome, and the broader point I'm making to you is that that wouldn't be consistent with the level of obligation we have in other parts of the curriculum, generally speaking.

Okay, thank you, Minister. Your paper says that the Bill is simply not affordable. Could you just comment further on your concerns regarding the costs, and are there any alternative options and funding models for schools to finance a residential outdoor education visit? Thank you.

This is at the heart of my concerns, in many ways. We had a discussion last week about the pressures on school budgets, the pressures on the Welsh Government's budget, and the very real pressure on council budgets, and what this Bill does is effectively attach a level of priority to this element of funding that isn't replicated across other funding requirements. So, it elevates this one very narrow element of what would be, then, the curriculum, above all others. And local authorities would expect that to be funded by the Government, that they'll provide for that. I couldn't justify, if I'm candid, however important I think the outdoor learning experience is for children, and I absolutely think it's crucial—. If there was the level of funding available to me that this Bill requires, which, in our view, is around £20 million a year, my argument would be that there are other demands in the system that we would want to make sure had that additional funding first.

So, you yourself have challenged me on additional learning needs funding. We want to make sure that there's sufficient support for literacy and numeracy. I think it would be very challenging to make the case that this ought to be the next priority if such additional funding were to become available—and, let's be clear, that isn't a realistic prospect anyway. But that's my concern.

There certainly are a lot of pressures on the system at the moment, Minister, you're quite right. But do you share my concern—this is my last question to you—that, of course, under the current situation, and LAs making cuts, we are seeing some cuts to some local authorities' outdoor education budgets? Obviously, that's going to impact the outdoor residential opportunities for learners. Do you share concerns about that? The Bill, I think, was proposing to protect that opportunity for all learners, whereas, if we're seeing cuts to it, that's obviously going to damage and relinquish those sorts of opportunities for learners across Wales, which, perhaps, isn't under your control, but how would we go about sorting that out? Thanks.

Well, I suppose the point I would make is that the Bill seeks to protect that uniquely. So, at the moment, as you will know from our previous discussions, the approach that I have taken in my budget to the grants that go to schools to support a range of interventions, from reform programmes to standards interventions and others, has been to provide a level of flexibility, so that authorities and schools can be as creative as possible in managing that funding to deliver the outcomes that we want. So, in a sense, this is going in exactly the opposite direction, and doing so in relation to what, by any fair assessment, would be a very narrow, single intervention in the educational journey of a child or young person, which doesn't seem to me to be sensible, in particular at a time when authorities are trying to manage those budgets under pressure in as creative and flexible a way that they can.

I do accept the point that you're making, that this might mean—that the level of pressure on budgets might mean—that this level of provision isn't funded as well as it is currently, or has been in the past. I accept that is a risk, but that is a risk in other areas as well, and I'm not sure that the solution is to ring-fence this one particular element of the budget.

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Laura. Questions from James Evans. James.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and good to see you, Minister, to talk again on this Bill. This is the second time in one week you've got the pleasure of my company. Just out of interest, Minister, a large number of people who responded to the consultation, other than financial constraints, said that one of the biggest barriers to outdoor residential education was the anxiety that people actually felt. I'm just wondering, from Welsh Government analysis, to what extent do you think the Bill addresses this issue. And if this Bill is not going to proceed, and it isn't the will of Government for this Bill to proceed, what, if anything, are the Welsh Government doing currently, within the current guidance and frameworks that you have, to help schools and support them to make sure that every child has the opportunity to do this when they're suffering with those anxiety issues?

Well, to your first point: does the legislation resolve those questions around anxiety—and uncertainty, I think you said? I don't think it does, but, in all candour, I don't think it could. Legislation can't do that in practice. I think that addressing anxieties of this sort requires a longer-term, more holistic approach to outdoor learning, outdoor education more broadly, than the Bill contemplates. The Bill contemplates one intervention of a particular kind—a very specific kind—and so I don't think that is the best way of overcoming those anxieties. But I don't think that's the fault of the legislation particularly; it's just more complex than that. My argument would be that the curriculum provides for that more embedded, integrated approach, which is, I think, more likely to address those concerns, those anxieties and those uncertainties that you spoke about.

[Inaudible.]—Minister. When we bring forward legislation of this type through the Senedd, we need to make sure that it's accessible to everybody, and especially those young people who have got physical disabilities, those struggling with their mental health, and other debilitating conditions that they have. As I said earlier, I'm just interested in what analysis that you've done to see whether this Bill addresses those points and makes sure that everybody can access residential outdoor education, and also, like my previous question, if this Bill is not to proceed, what is Welsh Government doing, currently, working with schools and our local authorities, to make sure that outdoor residential education is available for absolutely everybody who wants to access it?

Well, I think you make a very important point, and I'm mindful of two things. One is the committee's recent inquiry, which told us some very valuable things about the accessibility of education. And the other point, which I think was made on Monday in the other committee, is that this Bill doesn't seek to provide the same level of access across the piece, and the explanatory memorandum is candid about that. It doesn't include pupils in pupil referral units or being educated other than at school, for example. So, there are some challenges in the design of it, for reasons I do understand, incidentally, but I think that's important context. So, what are we doing? Schools already have obligations under the public sector equality duty, and you will, I think, know from your inquiry, that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is developing online learning for practitioners about how they can meet those duties.FootnoteLink We also provide, as a Government, advice to governors about how they can meet their duties.

Alongside that, we invest in the whole-school approach to mental health and well-being. The curriculum itself is designed to be responsive to the range of needs in the class. From a financial perspective, and the accessibility of residential outdoor education in that sense, the school essentials grant, which, as you know, is available now in each school year, rather than, in effect, every other school year, does enable funding through that fund to pay for waterproof clothing for outdoor activities, for example. So, there's a contribution that that can make. We have a funded programme with Children in Wales, tackling the impact of poverty on education, which provides bespoke guidance, toolkits and resources to schools around how they can minimise the effects of the cost of the school day on the choices that they make as part of the curriculum, but also the experience of young people, and there's a specific training pack there aimed at governors, which supports them in making those decisions, and that's about understanding those financial barriers and tailoring provision in a way that reflects and addresses that. So, I think there are a range of ways in which we are trying to support schools.

I think you made a broader point at the end of your question about, if this were not to go ahead, what could we do. In addition to the points I've just made, one of the offers I've made to the Member in charge—and I'm very keen on this, actually—is that we work together on how we can expand the resources, the guidance, available to all schools, through Hwb, about how outdoor learning can be a larger part of the curriculum. You talked about uncertainties in your earlier question. I think one of the obstacles is uncertainty from a risk point of view, that heads and teachers may not feel entirely confident in delivering some of this, and I think we can provide more support, more guidance, in relation to that. The challenge has always been that it isn't possible for us both on the one hand to manage the Government's response to the Bill and at the same time develop those resources, but my argument to the Member was we could achieve the same objectives by focusing on the latter, really, and that is still an offer that is available at the point when we've understood the journey this Bill is on.

[Inaudible.]—I'm done, thank you.

Diolch, James. We've now got some questions from John Griffiths, and nice to see you here, John, for this section.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Minister, as you mentioned, in terms of the requirements on local authorities and schools, pupils in pupil referral units and those educated other than at school are not included. Is there anything more you'd like to say in terms of what Welsh Government is doing, might do, to make sure that the offer is available to those particular pupils, and might you offer a view in terms of the Bill and what it might do to make that offer available to those pupils?

Yes, certainly. Well, the Bill doesn't do this, because it amends a part of the 2021 Act that isn't itself applicable to PRUs and young people educated other than at school. And it's intentional in doing that, and I understand the reason why it's doing that, which is that, because the staff-to-learner ratios are typically lower in those settings, it is, practically speaking, more of a challenge to deliver this residential outdoor education. But, in my experience, outdoor learning can be a very effective part of the curriculum for learners in pupil referral units and educated other than at school, and, indeed, for home-educated young people. In the latter category, we are—. As you know, in addition to what we provide for PRUs and EOTAS, we provide a specific fund to support home-educated children, with guidance around what we call a suitable and efficient education, and some of that is around physical activity and play, which would be a way in which some of that funding could be used to support those learners in this way.

If I might, Chair, perhaps I could just ask as well, quite generally, Minister, that—. I think, in my experience, some pupils who are struggling at school and perhaps haven't got as much confidence as they might have, coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds particularly, benefit more than other pupils from the confidence that accessing outdoor education in a residential setting can bring. It can be powerful, I think, in helping some pupils to move on and to gain confidence, which then enables them to achieve better in their general education. So, is there anything about, perhaps, having something in place that particularly concentrates on pupils in those circumstances, and makes it more feasible for them to benefit from this experience?

Well, I might ask Lloyd just to come in, in a moment, about the existing provision in the curriculum that supports this, but I absolutely do take the point that you're making about the particular benefits of outdoor learning to pupils in settings other than at school. I've seen that in my own constituency, as well as in my role as education Minister. The existing curriculum, I think, provides a range of ways in which that can happen, and I also think that the residential component is very important. I still think that the concerns that we have about the legislation as it is designed for mainstream provision, if I can use that term, would also apply in the context of EOTAS and PRUs. But that is not to say that I don't recognise the value of residential outdoor learning; in that case, I absolutely do, as I do in the mainstream settings. But, Lloyd, could you just say a little bit about the existing provisions in the curriculum and how they apply in this space?

Yes, of course. So, there are a number of different references across health and well-being—humanities and science and technology in particular—that really emphasise and draw out the importance of outdoor learning and outdoor experiences in those specific contexts at a general level, but also then drawing in ensuring the expectation that learners have experiences. So, for example, in humanities, that draws in geography, it draws in history. It therefore spans a number of different disciplines. So, within health and well-being, then, there's an expectation that there would be a range of experiences in terms of physical activities, and then, of course, in science and technology, then, through field trips et cetera. So, all of this is then supported in terms of learners' early years, in terms of the curriculum for non-maintained settings and foundation learning, which, again, building on the foundation phase, has a really strong emphasis on outdoor learning, and then, of course, supported particularly through the curriculum for PRUs and EOTAS, which builds on the content of the curriculum, which I've just described. So, there's a range of expectations there for outdoor learning and, of course, residential outdoor learning experiences then can quite clearly and easily plug into those, across not just one specific part of the curriculum, but then drawing in, as I say, those three areas of learning experience I've mentioned. But, of course, there are obvious authentic opportunities, then, to link with the other three areas of learning and experience as well.

Sioned Williams. Sioned.

Diolch, Gadeirydd, a phrynhawn da, Weinidog. Mae'r Bil yn darparu bod yn rhaid i'r addysg awyr agored yma fod ar gael yn Gymraeg, os taw dyna yw dymuniad yr ysgol. Oes yna ddigon o ddarpariaeth ar gael ar hyn o bryd yn Gymraeg, a hefyd i ateb y galw posib os daw'r Bil i fod yn gyfraith? Ac os ddim, beth sydd angen ei wneud, a chan bwy, i sicrhau bod ysgolion yn medru cyrchu'r math hyn o addysg yn eu dewis iaith?

Wrth gwrs, rwy'n cytuno, os ydy'r math yma o ddarpariaeth yn mynd i ddod yn ei flaen trwy'r math yma o ddeddfwriaeth, fod y gofyniad yn y Bil i hynny fod ar gael trwy'r Gymraeg yn hollbwysig ac yn anhepgor. Ein dealltwriaeth ni ar hyn o bryd yw bod argaeledd staff sydd wedi eu hyfforddi yn y ffordd addas i ddarparu'r addysg tu allan yma, ac i wneud hynny yn ddwyieithog, yn debygol iawn o fod yn is na'r galw am y gwasanaeth pe bai'r Bil yn dod yn gyfraith. Fel rŷch chi'n ei wybod, mae recriwtio staff sy'n medru dysgu trwy'r Gymraeg yn her benodol sydd gyda ni yn y system addysg ei hun—y system addysg brif ffrwd, os hoffwch chi. Felly, mae hwn yn fersiwn ychwanegol o'r her honno. Pe bai'r Bil yn dod yn Ddeddf, byddwn i'n gweld bod angen i ni fel Llywodraeth ddatblygu cynllun recriwtio penodol, gyda'r sector addysg allanol, i recriwtio staff wedi eu hyfforddi yn addas ar gyfer y gwasanaeth. Byddwn i'n dadlau bod sgwrs a thrafodaeth fuddiol i'w cael gyda'r sector, beth bynnag yw hynt y Bil hwn, i weld beth yn fwy y gallwn ni ei wneud i gynyddu'r ddarpariaeth fel y mae hi o dan y system gyfredol.

Diolch. A fyddai, er enghraifft, sicrhau bod y ddarpariaeth sy'n cael ei sôn amdani yn y Bil ar gael yng Nghymru yn helpu i gefnogi datblygu darpariaeth cyfrwng Cymraeg, ydych chi'n meddwl?

Rwy'n credu bod yr her yn un sy'n dod cyn hynny. Hynny yw, dwi ddim yn credu mai diffyg galw am y gwasanaeth yw'r her benodol; rwy'n credu mai diffyg argaeledd staff yw'r her. Felly, dwi'n deall pam rŷch chi'n gofyn y cwestiwn, ond dwi ddim yn credu bod hwnnw yn ei hun yn ddatrysiad i'r her fwy elfennol honno.

Ar y mater o drwyddedu, dyw'r Bil ddim yn darparu ar gyfer trwyddedu darparwyr nac yn gosod gofynion y mae'n rhaid eu bodloni cyn derbyn ymweliadau preswyl gan ysgolion. Beth yw eich barn chi ar osod lefel ofynnol o ofynion i ddarparwyr addysg awyr agored breswyl eu bodloni cyn eu bod nhw'n medru derbyn ymweliadau gan ysgolion? Beth fyddai'r manteision a'r anfanteision o’ch safbwynt chi?

Wel, mae'r memorandwm esboniadol yn gwyntyllu mwy nag un ffordd bosib o ddelio â hyn—elfennau statudol hefyd, elfennau kitemark ac ati. Mae unrhyw gynllun trwyddedu, wrth reswm yn rhywbeth cymhleth ac mae angen ystyriaeth fanwl iawn o oblygiadau hynny. Dyw hynny ddim yn rhan o'r cynnig yn y Bil hwn. Sut mae'r Bil yn delio ag e yw caniatáu i Weinidogion greu gofynion ar y sector, os ydyn nhw eisiau darparu, trwy'r mecanwaith darparu canllawiau. Dwi ddim yn credu bod hynny'n addas o ran sicrhau system sy'n gweithio, dyw hi ddim yn ffordd o gyflwyno system drwyddedu, a dyna, a dweud y gwir, rwy'n credu ei fod e'n ceisio'i wneud. Felly, dyw e ddim yn addas ar gyfer hwnnw. A'r her arall rŷn ni wedi sôn amdani eisoes heddiw—ac fe wnes i drafod hyn yn fwy helaeth ddydd Llun—yw bod defnyddio'r canllawiau i yrru elfen elfennol o'r system, ac elfennol mewn ffordd ofynnol, os hoffwch chi, ddim yn addas. Dyw e ddim yn cael ei graffu arno yn y Senedd, a does dim digon o fanylder yn beth sy'n cael ei gynnig i roi sicrwydd.

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you, Sioned. Diolch. And, obviously, that's the end of our evidence session, just on time, Minister. Thank you for that. I think we might have some technical questions that we will put in writing to you following the letter that we've received, just to clarify a couple of things as well. But diolch yn fawr. And you will receive a transcript just to check for factual accuracy in due course. Thank you for your evidence this morning.

Thank you, Cadeirydd. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch. Hwyl.

And we will now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is papers to note. We have a number of papers to note this morning—actually, a shorter number than usual, which is three. Are Members content to note those letters together? They're all set out in the agenda and the paper pack. I see everybody is content.

So, we will now move into private session for the next part of our agenda.